Main menu

Post navigation

Noble Cause Corruption is moving from this server to a new server at www.noblecausecorruption.co.uk. The new server means I can have more control over the format of the site and content by using wordpress.org rather than wordpress.com. Trust me there are some out there who know exactly what I am talking about.

If you are an email subscriber then I have imported you into the new site but it is possible that it might not have worked. If you are a WordPress blogger yourself then I am struggling to find an import for you. Please bear with me for the next few posts as I may double blog on both sites before eventually closing down the wordpress.com site at some time in the future. However, it is all new territory. I don’t want to lose any of you as I enjoy all the feedback I receive at noblecausecorruption@hotmail.co.uk.

I make no bones about reproducing the below legal report of the victory of former Inspector Edward Crudace over the shambolic attempt to reduce his injury pension simply because he had reached 65 years of age. Additionally I have no qualms about publicising the PIPIN website (which stands for Police Injury Pension Network) The offending circular is HO Circular 46/2004:

The court case concerns former Inspector Edward Crudace, who served with the Northumbria police. Mr Crudace, now aged 67, was seriously injured whilst arresting a prisoner and was forced to retire as a police officer. His injuries meant he could not work and he was awarded a substantial police injury pension. However, when he reached the age of 65 his pension was slashed by Northumbria Police, relying on Home Office guidance, leaving Mr Crudace with a vastly reduced income.

Last month the High Court in Leeds heard Mr David Lock, QC, of No5 Chambers, on behalf of Mr Crudace, condemn the Home Office guidance as unlawful because it led to police injury pensions routinely being reduced to the lowest level when former officers reached the age of 65.

The Judge, HHJ Behrens, has now released a judgement upholding these criticisms and quashing the decision of the Northumbria police to reduce Mr Crudace’s pension. The Judge decided the Home Office guidance was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the statutory scheme under which the pensions were paid. In another part of the judgement which will cause concern to other Police Authorities, His Honour Judge Behrens confirmed that former police officers who have had their pensions reduced in this way are entitled apply to the Police Authority for the decisions to be reversed and for their pensions to be restored.

Mr Ron Thompson of Lake Jackson solicitors says: “This judgement opens the door for thousands of injured police officers who have had their pensions reduced unlawfully to apply to have the decision reversed. When the decision is reviewed they will be entitled to a pension at its proper level and, in many cases, to a substantial back payment.

“The right thing for Police Authorities to do now is to identify every former injured police officer whose pension has been wrongly reduced, and to agree to review each one. If they do not do this it seems inevitable that they will face further legal actions as former injured officers assert their right to the pension to which they are entitled.

“I also hope that the Home Office recognises that the fault for this misconceived guidance lies with officials at the Home Office rather than individual police forces. The cost of putting this debacle right ought to be met by the Home Office and not individual police forces.”Mr Crudace adds: “I always knew that my pension had been wrongly reduced but Northumbria Police Authority refused to accept this, and have wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayers money attempting to defend an unlawful decision.

“I would like to express my sincere thanks to my superb legal team, Mr Ron Thompson and David Lock QC of No5 Chambers, who took this case on a “no-win, no fee” arrangement despite all its risks. I know there are many former police officers who have been injured serving their communities in the same position as me. They have seen their pensions cut to the lowest level when they reach 65 in reliance on this unlawful Guidance. I hope they will be able to use this landmark decision to get their pensions restored to the level they are entitled to.”

The Northumbria Police Authority wasted tens of thousands of taxpayers money trying to reduce the wealth of former serving officer who only became injured as a direct result of being a police officer serving their local community. No doubt with the support and blessing of the Home Office. We are worth nothing to those in power. They should be ashamed of their abuse of power and their attack on those injured in the line of duty.

The sobering case of PC James Holden of Hampshire Constabulary should show what the job thinks of those of us still in it. To put this in context I need to ask those readers of this blog who are not police officers to consider the following scenario.

Imagine, if you will, getting up to go to your work. You shower and dress, eat a breakfast and possibly drink a cup of coffee or tea to wake you up for the day. You kiss your partner goodbye and, without much thought, drive or commute to your place of work. What then takes place is that you try your very hardest to do a day’s work. However, what sets PC James Holden apart from most of the non police readers is the fact that his constabulary tried to send him to prison for trying to do his very best.

Could it really be possible that you try your very hardest and some third party, in an office, looks at your best efforts and decides that you should face life changing consequences and incarceration? Welcome to the world of uPSD.

PC Holden followed a stolen van containing burglars which chose to crash through a level crossing railway barrier. The van driver was arrested on the other side of the crossing by a colleague because PC Holden did not cross the railway line. Did PC Holden instigate the dangerous driving or did he merely respond to a situation unfolding in front of him? Of course, we all know the answer. Thankfully the jury also knew the answer and took less than two hours (note: less than 2 hours!!!!) to see through the fallacy of Hampshire Senior Command. So that’s alright then. Another police officer freed following over zealous judicial process. You must be joking.

The next time PC Holden or his colleagues see a stolen van driving dangerously what is he likely to do? Try his very best and face going to prison? What would you do?

Hopefully, if I have been burgled and the thieves are trying to escape justice, officers like PC Holden will respond because it is the right thing to do. Hopefully, the public will back and support police officers dealing with errant criminal underclasses by continuing to show the pricks that continue to lead the uPSD of many forces in this country that they want police officers to be robust and effective. Is there anything more effective than arresting burglars driving a stolen van?

As the last paragraphs of the BBC report states: “After the verdict, Hampshire Constabulary said: “Police officers do a difficult job often in very difficult circumstances and the people being pursued were caught as a result of this pursuit and convicted of burglary, vehicle theft and a number of other offences.

“Police officers involved in pursuits are subject to a high level of specialist training, adhering to national policy and codes of practice. Following the outcome of this case we will identify any organisational learning that comes out of it.”

The ONLY organisational learning is that the senior management should stop trying to criminalise hard working police officers.

In has not gone un-noticed to NCC the hypocrisy of a recent Sun newspaper article into the £12million in compo for cops. Plod cash in on minor injuries. This is their headline not mine. I am sure that Tom Newton Dunn who is the political editor of the newspaper and author for this piece of trash writing is proud of himself. You see, the article goes on to detail a number of so called “bonkers” payouts to police workers but the headline payouts they use are not to police officers.

Hypocritical to the Core

Nothing makes my blood boil more than newspapers, for the sake of a cheap headline, using police as a generic term for basically pen pushers, clerks and typists who are no more “police” than the bloke who delivers the pies to the canteen from the local bakery. For the information of those dim witted and ignorant reporters out there, to be in the police you have to state an oath to the queen, become a crown employee and be governed by police regulations. You cannot be unfairly dismissed and you are subject to potential processes which will land you in prison for not doing your job or being drunk when you do it.

The hypocrisy in this article is all this coming from the self righteous Sun Newspaper, the sponsors of the Police Bravery Awards using statistics to prove a point that the statistics don’t prove. Just click the link to see the lengths officer go to in saving lives. Have the Sun forgotten that just to pull a uniform on and patrol the streets of the UK is an act of bravery in itself? Every day police officers and I mean real police officers face life threatening danger and life altering situations in their normal course of duty.

The riots were a classic example. I didn’t see any police support workers present nor did I see any HR officials or administrative staff donning riot gear and carrying riot shields. Today it could be Manchester, tomorrow it could be Bristol. Yet the Sun seek to make small politics out of it. They should be ashamed.

In a shocking revelation of Noble Cause Corruption of the highest order I draw your attention to the Independent Newspaper’s article about the hacking of Milly Dowler’s mobile phone and the fact that Surrey Police knew of the crime. Not only did they know but they chose to ignore the crime for many years and then, only because the sh1t had hit the fan in 2011, did they actually admit they knew.

Now you can be rest assured that this is a high ranking noble cause corruption because, if the offending officer(s) were only federated rank, particularly the lower end of the scale, then the full wrath of the misconduct and judicial process would be descending upon them from a great height. The question remains to see whether any of these high ranking buffoons will actually face the music. After all, I’ve lost count of the number of officers I have represented for failing to investigate a crime. In fact, I have seen some go to prison often in the most undeserving of cases.

It is typical of the underhanded tactics used by senior ranking officers in the police to only seek to administer discipline to the lower and middle ranks whilst they cajole each other and cover up serious wrongdoings enacted by themselves. I know a number of former colleagues who have been convicted for spurious offences, particularly Misconduct in a Public Office, when the evidence is that they may have acted like an idiot and faced a subsequent prison sentence rather than a loss of employment. I don’t know why we put up with it.

Exclusive

Just thought I'd show it again

On a different tack, Noble Cause Corruption blogged on the 3rd January 2012 a title of Misplaced Loyalties. How many of you noticed that the motor vehicle featured in the blog is the same vehicle that Greater Manchester Police have been desperately trying to cover up. Or have they? The recent newspaper frenzy has intimated that the crashed car was very recent. One of the daily rags even quoted the accident having occurred in the last few days but, of course, Noble Cause can rely on their sources implicitly. Newspapers have gone apoplectic over this story but they all missed one small fact that isn’t common knowledge. My source tells me that the last person to drive the vehicle before it was loaned to Greater Manchester Police was The Stig for Top Gear around their test track. Apparently, it has cost GMP £38000 to put this debacle right. No wonder they weren’t publicising it!

On a slightly strange note, it should be noted that one of the reporters in this Manchester Evening News piece of journalism was former Terry Duckworth from Coronation Street actor, Nigel Pivaro in his new career as a journalist. The other was Neal Kealing who always seems to get those stories about police misconduct that are “leaked” from the force.

I have been approached by someone not connected with this site to publicise a T-Shirt selling venture. The t-shirts concerned outline the general police discontent felt at the moment due to the unwarranted pressure being placed on police officer’s rights and entitlements. The shirts will retail at about £15 each and all profits going to a worthy police charity albeit the product is not endorsed by them.

Care of Police Survivors (otherwise known as COPS) is a UK registered charity dedicated to helping the families of police officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty, rebuild their lives. It aims to ensure that survivors have all the help they need to cope with such a tragedy, and that they remain part of the police family.

Over to you. If you want one then simply email me at Noble Cause Corruption and I will forward the emails to the relevant person. I had drunk some alcohol at the time but I think the idea is that they will then send an invoice email from paypal for payment which will include postage and packing.

Maybe a strange title but it seems to fit a recent debacle by a force in this country but typical of the petty minded bureaucrats and ACPO politicos of your average force. Newton’s third law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The scenario being told today concerns a former colleague who has retired from the police but with a grievance. He believes that he is entitled to some money but the force concerned don’t consider that they owe it to him. So they will meet some time in the future across a table in the small claims court. Perhaps, once it is over I may reveal some of the more interesting facts about the case.

The equal and opposite force in this matter is a problem caused by the bullish, pedantic and downright unreasonable behaviour of this force in what stinks like a money making exercise. Our colleague wrote to the relevant force asking for them to consider agreeing certain matters rather than having to resort to statement taking. A bit like the Section 10 Criminal Justice Act admission that seems to have fallen out of favour these days.

The response was staggering. No, no and no again. If you want any information then you need to apply for permission to interview and request a statement at a cost of £125 per request. Oh, I forgot, plus VAT!! Our colleague was angry and bewildered and came to me for assistance. I know nothing about the processes of the small claims court, the fast track process and Part 27 of the Court Procedural Rules but the one thing I do know is everything comes to he who waits. In this case it came in the form of a request for assistance.

The request for assistance came from the same police litigation department that are fighting the small claims matter though obviously through different police solicitors. Clearly they don’t talk amongst themselves. Perhaps their arrogance prevents them from doing so. The assistance is in the form of an employment tribunal in which our colleague has been named amongst 5 other serving officers by the claimant. Never has an allegation (albeit a malicious one) of bullying and harassment been received so well.

You see, in the request for assistance, our retired colleague has been asked to provide a witness statement to assist the force he retired from in the forthcoming employment tribunal. The letter also states the importance to the case of our retired colleague assisting to dismiss the claims to prevent compensation being paid un-necessarily. So the anguished exclamation which will wake you from your slumber early on Monday morning will be the solicitors opening the post at the litigation department when they realise that our retired colleague will provide a statement for the going rate of £125…………plus VAT of course!